It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simultaneous invasion of Iran and Syria possible?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Nonsense, it is a simple recognition of the reality of what happened.

The vast bulk of the fighting in the 'European theatre' with the Germans was in the east by Russia and Russia won that hands down.

That does not deny others contributed and neither does it down-play that contribution



That might be true if you said that Russia won the vast bulk of the fighting in Europe. That would have been recognition of what happened. But you didnt you just said


The truth is that Russia won WW2 in Europe.


Down playing the others.

WW2 was a team effort for the Allies in Europe. You know that theres no I in team stuff. I never said one side helped more then the other side. This is really more about my use of the phrase "Helped alot" and thats really just symantics.

If your trying to make it seem like I was suggesting Russia didnt handle the bulk of the fighting in Europe your wasting your time because I wasnt suggesting that.

But there was a lot more factors to the Western front then just when D-day started and how many Germans they killed that do not allow me to say and single country won the war in Europe like you do.

The US could have really upped the kill total though if say 500,000 Nazi POWs would have died in captivity like they did under the Soviets.




The fact remains that Russia had effectively defeated the German armies by June 1944 and the outcome was never in any real doubt.


This is also down playing the effort Hitler had to use in men and resources before the Western front was even started in preparing for it. Or the million of tons of munitions and other war material the other allies gave to the Soviet union. See these are some of the other factors I was talking about you seem to have no care to factor in.






Stalin wanted the 2nd front to reduce the pressure on Russia, that is perfectly reasonable, totally understandable and nothing like the same as saying that without it they either couldn't win or would have lost now, is it?


Did I ever say they couldn't or could win without it? I said their odds didnt look so good without it, and thats true if Hitler didnt have to waste resources and man power in defense of the comming invasion and then the invasion itself it wouldn't have increased Stalins odds.



They hardly 'waited' until the atomic bomb was dropped (something almost no-one outside of the USA knew about anyway) and the idea that they would just happen to attack the day after hearing about Hiroshima to somehow capitalise on it is as ignorant of the facts as it is laughable.


Yeah you would think that was laughable but you know thats exactly what happened. Russia didnt declare war on Japan until after a Atomic bomb was dropped and Japan was about to surrender.

And no-one outside of the USA knew about the A bomb
Nows whos showing some ignorance. Thats pretty funny all the Allied leaders were told about the weapon before it was used. Stalin even knew about it before the US told him some how. Though its not really known if he knew exactly how powerful this new weapon was going to be before it was dropped.




Feb 3rd 1945 at Yalta

And you were knocking on the US for showing up late to the party. Feb 1945 yeah really looked like Japan was going to turn it around by then. Im sure they just need to catch a second win and it would have been all good.



Japan was far from considered defeated, even after Hiroshima the Japanese military did not wish to sue for peace.


They were trying to surrender even before the A-bombs were dropped. Though they wanted some conditions (mainly that the emperor remain in power) and the US wanted unconditional surrender.

Some parts of the Japanese military didnt want to surrender after the Bombings thats true but they were a rather small percent and they failed the Emperor had already had up his mind.

Russias biggest factor in the war with Japan was maybe the threat that they would demand a part in a post-war occupation in Japan. If they got involved in the war to any real degree. We all know how that Soviet "liberation" and occupation turned out


The fact that they didnt have any part in post-war occupation of Japan is testimony to just how much of a factor they were in the war with Japan.



One thing I can agree with you on sminkeypinkey is not hijacking this thread anymore. If you want to start a thread on How Russia won Europe or how Russia helped defeat Japan Ill be all for it.



[edit on 14-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]




posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
This war will be the fourth world war.WW2 hardware will be non-existant in the major battle theaters.Even the Cold War hardware will be outdated.Numbers will mean nothing.
It will be something as surprising as the Ottoman invasion of Walachia in 1583(?) .The Turks had 20 canons and 400000 men;they were preparing to conquer all Europe up to Rome in a medieval "blitzkrieg"
Our guys had 8000 men ,5000 in battle status and 3000 newly-arrived grunts.AND the "advanced fireworks" cpt Conrad Haas invented in 1555 at Sibiu ,in Transylvania:the first ballistic missiles in the world:having 2 stages, only able to fly about 5 miles,but enough to wreak havoc in the Ottoman army.They were attracted into a large swamp,crossed by a "high bridge" which was collapsed by our 2 cannons.There they were targete by missiles,who also targetted the supply camps ,in the rear.200000 turks died that day,the others retrieved from the battle which was later viewed as a "stalemate"
Anyway,technology is a big deal:the surprise nature of war means that if don't know what the other guy;s having in his stock you may witness an embarasing defeat.
So,all those people calling the ancient China "a paper tiger" ,or India or Persia or Russia will be disappointed ,I';m affraid
I'm not saying that the US military is not the best trained in the world,that they have the best logistics and tactics.
Just that strategy comes first.
It's total ridiculous for a site like strategypaper to say that USA has a rating of 2480,Russia 360,Israel 602 and China 800.Wait a minute...Israel which is as large as 3 times the county of Cluj,is twice as powerfull as Russia? Or China is 3 times as powerfull as Russia?
Or,by the way USA is 100 times more powerfull than Romania?



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   
invasion of iran and syria at the same time would be impossible first of all financially it would cripple the US combined witht he financial aftermath of high oil prices becuase of iran it would continue to cut away at america.

that out of the way we then have irans and syrias huge stcokpile of modern anti-tank missiles syria got ahold of metis-m and kornet-e missiles
that they got from russia combined with the sa-18 igla shoulder launched missiles and they already had some sa-14 and sa-16 missiles. they are pretty much russias only foothold in the middle east do people really think russia will just sit back and do nothing they will not get involved directly but they will transfer top of the line tech such as the iskander ballistic missiles to those countries if theres a real fear of invasion of this i have no dought. iran and syria combined have enough anti-tank missiles to destroy the combined tank forces or US, british forces, france and germany combined and let not forget there tandem warhead rpg's that they have which will do great against strykers and humvees.

then we must also factor in any renagade guerilla forces that get created during the invasion/attack as usally happenes and if they are anything as good as hezbollah or as advanced as hezbollah with advaced mines,missiles,rockets and UAV's and also advanced in trainning and planning then any incomming force is going to have a hell of a time.

basically the best america/west can hope for is to bomb iran/syria from the air and thats pretty much it i thing attack on syria/iran would be like the final straw that broke the cammels/horses/donkeys back and i think at that point even muslim allies the west have would be lost when people start thinking hey why invade so many muslim countries in a row while north korea is screaming they have nukes/WMD while its not even proven iran has even 1 nuke.



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join